Category: Procedural

Posted on

Challenge To University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Policy Tossed For “Mootness”

An Alberta Judge has dismissed an Application on the grounds that the issue is “moot”, and there’s no relief that can be realistically granted.

The hearing itself took place on May 5th and 6th, with the ruling just coming out. Of course, these mandates were still in place when the Application itself was originally filed.

The case involves a challenge to the “vaccine passport” system that had been in place, and the denial of a religious exemption. The school argued that since the policy has been rescinded, there’s no issue left to be decided.

Is The Application Moot?
[7] The Respondent argues that there is no longer a tangible or concrete dispute between the parties. The vaccination program which is the subject matter of this application was repealed after being in place approximately four months. Therefore, it is the Respondent’s position that any decision made by this Court as to the impact of the program on the Applicant’s Charter or other rights will have no practical effect on her ability to attend the University.

[8] The leading case regarding the principles of mootness remains Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 [Borowski]. The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of the general policy or practice that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. If, subsequent to the initiation of the action or proceeding, events occur which affect the relationship of the parties so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the parties, the case is said to be moot. The matter will therefore not be heard unless the court exercises its discretion to depart from that general policy: Borowski, at para 15.

[9] To determine whether an application is moot, a two-step analysis must be undertaken: first, to determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issues have become academic; and second, if the answer to the first question is yes, to determine whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case: Borowski, at para 16.

[10] With respect to the first stage of the analysis, there must be a consideration of whether there remains a live controversy between the parties. A live controversy, in this context, involves whether there exists, on an objective assessment, a dispute between the parties the resolution of which will actually affect the parties’ rights or interests: The Alberta Teachers’ Association v Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division No 28, 2022 ABCA 13, at para 34.

[11] It may well be, from a practical perspective, that there is no remedy that can be granted by the Court to rectify or ameliorate the impact of the alleged breaches of the Applicant’s rights. The Applicant is not seeking damages or other compensatory relief. Nor can the court provide any relief from future potential harm the vaccination policy may cause Ms. Nassichuk-Dean, as that policy is no longer in place and hasn’t been since March. Again, Ms. Nassichuk-Dean is not seeking injunctive or other relief for any anticipated rights breaches against her.

[12] Rather, the Applicant is seeking declarations that the application of the University’s COVID-19 policy violated her s. 7 Charter rights, and that the rejection of her application for a religious exemption from the policy breached her rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Had the Applicant been asking for money, or some additional form of relief, it’s entirely possible the case would have kept going. But since the only issue was challenging the policy itself, it was determined that there’s no longer any issue to be heard.

Of course, what’s to stop the University of Lethbridge (or any school) from re-implementing such mandates in the future? There’s no assurance they won’t at some point.

On a side note: the University of Lethbridge, like other Canadian schools, is a registered charity. This means that it receives the benefits of many tax breaks ordinary citizens cannot get.

The school receives handouts from all levels of Government, so it’s unlikely that it will do anything to rock the boat. No college or university in Canada did anything to challenge or push back on vaccine or mask mandates. As with everything, follow the money.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.pdf
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5301&regId=924907
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=lethbridge+university&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=119279248RR0001&dsrdPg=1

Posted on

Hearing On Motion To Strike Federal Travel Restrictions Cases For “Mootness”

Canadians have filed several court challenges related to travel restrictions going on since 2020. It appears that 4 cases were consolidated, given their related and overlapping issues. The primary issues revolved around Section 6 of the Charter, Mobility Rights.

  • T-1991-21: Karl Harrison/Shaun Rickard
  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford et al.
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier

Although the circumstances of each challenge differ, all of them are concerned with Canadians being able to travel and move freely within the country.

Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
.
Marginal note: Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

However, Section 1 of the Charter has shown just how worthless this document really is. Far from the requirement that limitations be demonstrably justified, Judges have seen fit to uphold these violations based on the flimsiest of justifications.

Instead, it’s been replaced with blindly trusting the experts.

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That being said, the Feds probably aren’t interested in having to justify these restrictions in court, so they came up with another option. Their lawyers filed a motion to strike the case for “mootness”. Plainly put, the argument is that since the restrictions have been lifted (as in, the orders expired), there’s nothing for a Judge to look at.

This is disingenuous for a few reasons. First, even if there are no active restrictions, it doesn’t erase any harm or violation of Constitutional rights. This comes across as a cop-out to avoid taking any responsibilities.

Second, various officials have made it clear they “won’t hesitate to bring back” various restrictions and martial law measures. So, while these may be “suspended” for the time being, it doesn’t mean that they won’t come back in some form.

We’ll have to see what comes of this, but it would be unfortunate to allow this kind of stunt to circumvent people getting their day in court.

(1) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(3) T-1991-21 Doc 51 MOTION RECORD in response to Motion Doc. No. 44
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

Posted on

Federal Vaxx Pass Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Get To Trial

A challenge to vaccine passports (see archive) by Federal workers has been filed (T-1089-22). It was launched on May 30, 2022, and has little activity to show so far. It appears that after being idle for 3 months, the Defense has sent a letter requesting case management.

A source told this site that potential Plaintiffs were being asked to put up $1,000 each to offset costs for this lawsuit. However, it hasn’t been verified, so it’s just an allegation for now. Update: the claim of this retainer has since been confirmed.

But that is the least of it. This Statement of Claim appears to be so poorly crafted that it will never survive in its current form. Most likely, it will be struck. This is a pattern that comes up again and again.

Keep in mind: the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada cases were critiqued as well. The former went down in flames, while the latter remains dormant. While the Federal case isn’t (quite) the dumpster fire that the others were, the drafting is still very bad.

Since the Action4Canada case was struck, Plaintiffs have (quite sensibly) started bailing. See here and here. They realize that this isn’t what they signed up for.

Side note: the Federal Court of Canada allows the public to search the progress of the case, both in terms of documents filed, but status updates. Documents can also be requested by giving staff the file # and the document #. It’s quite convenient.

1. Claim Contains Content Court Can’t Preside Over

The Statement of Claim is filled with allegations and issues that cannot be resolved in a Civil Court. That alone would get the case struck. It’s also worth noting that the numbering system is inconsistent and confusing, much like the A4C and VCC Claims.

  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) crimes against humanity
  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity Act
  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) Criminal Code of Canada
  • (Page 20, Para 1(d)(1)) Magna Carta
  • (Page 28, Para 34(d)) allegations of eugenics
  • (Page 30, Para 47) allegations of crimes against humanity
  • (Page 30, Para 47) allegations Nazi experimentation
  • (Page 30, Para 47) reference to Nuremberg Code
  • (Page 30, Para 47) reference to Helsinki Declaration
  • (Page 32, Para 52(a)(v)) reference to Criminal Code of Canada
  • (Page 35, Para 55(g)) reference to Criminal Code of Canada

This played a role in getting the Action4Canada case struck out a few weeks ago. None of this belongs in a Civil Claim, and could easily be used in a Motion to Strike.

2. Claim Paragraphs Not Set Out In Organized Manner

Form of pleadings
173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

This Rule has to do with the organization of the Claim itself. Considering that the Defendant(s) has to respond to the allegations, it has to be easy for them to either “admit” or “deny” paragraphs, or to state that certain ones are unknown. Because this lawsuit is so shoddily crafted, it’s impractical, and near impossible to address the document in any meaningful way.

3. Claim Lacks Concise Statement Of Material Facts

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

This is a no-brainer. If someone is to be sued, then there must be a concise (relatively short) set of facts laid out in the Statement of Claim. This document is filled with accusations and demands, but is quite limited on the facts to be pleaded.

[British Columbia Rules]
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a)set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim

[Ontario Rules]
Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
25.06 (1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

The Federal Rules are the same in this regard as the B.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 3-1(2)(a) calls for Notices of Civil Claim to have a concise statement of material facts. In Ontario it’s Rule 25.06(1). There are similar provisions in other Provincial Courts as well.

4. Claim Lacks Necessary Particulars To Go Ahead

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.
.
(2) On motion, the Court may order a party to serve and file further and better particulars of any allegation in its pleading

This is based on Rule 181 of the Federal Court Rules. When the term “particulars” is used here, it means specifics. The allegations must contain enough detailed information so that Defendants may address them.

Here, there are plenty of allegations thrown around, but the document is sorely lacking in specifics. It’s not enough make accusations, but the factual basis must be laid out as well. Ontario Rules 25.06(8) and (10) also lay out this requirement.

This (may) not get the lawsuit thrown out by itself. However, it’s enough that a Judge or Prothonotary would either strike it, or issue an Order for a rewrite.

5. Nature Of Damages Isn’t Really Specified

Claims to be specified
182 Every statement of claim, counterclaim and third party claim shall specify
(a) the nature of any damages claimed;
(b) where monetary relief is claimed, whether the amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $50,000;
(c) the value of any property sought to be recovered;
(d) any other specific relief being claimed, other than costs; and
(e) whether the action is being proceeded with as a simplified action.

This should be common sense. Parties seeking damages need to spell out the exact relief they are seeking. That said, the Claim is so rambling and disjointed that it isn’t all that clear. At a bare minimum, this needs to be redone.

6. Entire Claim Could Be Struck Under Rule 221

Motion to strike
221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,
(b) is immaterial or redundant,
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
.
and may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly.

This is very similar to Rule 9-5 of the British Columbia Rules of Civil Procedure. It allows for pleadings that are convoluted, confusing, or otherwise an abuse of process to be struck out. Even someone well versed in the content would be hard pressed to follow along with the Claim.

The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.11, has this wording as well. It allows Judges to throw out (or at least strike) suits that are abusive in nature.

Having read through the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits, it appears that entire sections are just cut-and-pasted for this one. Doesn’t speak highly for the work involved.

There are also approximately 100 “John Does” and “Jane Does” in the Statement of Claim. This is going to make things confusing, since Defendants have the right to confront their accusers.

Keep in mind, this is a very rudimentary look at the Statement of Claim. It’s entirely possible that there are more defects that can lead to it getting thrown out.

So, why keep drafting such garbage?

Who benefits from cases that either remain inactive for months, or years? Who benefits from cases that are so poorly drafted that they get thrown out on a preliminary challenge? It doesn’t appear that any of these cases were ever intended to move ahead.

Keep in mind, that hundreds of law firms have received CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Others have received cash from the Summer Grants Program. Pretty hard to oppose Trudeau when his programs are paying one’s salaries.

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.

Well meaning people have paid good money, in the hopes that worthwhile litigation would be undertaken. It’s pretty pathetic that this site is a far more reliable source for updates than the lawyers running the show. Then again, considering the complete lack of progress, it’s not unexpected.

Putting things in perspective….

This website was sued last year for $7,000,000, for exposing what was really happening with the various “anti-lockdown” cases. It speaks volumes when more effort is spent trying to silence critics than to take on Trudeau, Ford, or Horgan. Any any event, that case is stayed, pending an anti-SLAPP Motion.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(6) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

GILL/LAMBA CASES:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill/Lamba Dismissed As A SLAPP

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

ONTARIO STUDENTS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

Posted on

A Look At Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

This piece will be a bit different. A case from a decade ago has helped bring a particular type of vexatious litigant to the public’s consciousness: Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.

A bit of a disclaimer: this isn’t to suggest that everyone who employs such techniques does so for an underhanded purpose. There are true believers out there.

The case referenced is Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). The facts themselves aren’t really as interesting as the background research that has been done in preparing this ruling. It contains a wealth of information from tactics and habits of such OPCA. litigants. While there is typically some truth in what they espouse, it’s rarely the full story.

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.

[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.

While one can make valid arguments that Canadian laws are grossly insufficient or inadequate, that is not entirely the point with OPCA litigants. Instead, they allege that laws don’t apply. That can be very dangerous when it comes to institutions like the Canada Revenue Agency.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a surge of people who’ve lost faith in the judicial process in the last few years. There’s good reason for that, and it’s tempting to give these arguments another look.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

By selling commercial products, this typically refers to seminars or guidebooks on how to assert certain rights and avoid consequences. The courts view this as exploiting vulnerable people.

Starting at paragraph 99, the ruling lists other Canadian “gurus”, including:

  • David Kevin Lindsay
  • John Ruiz Dempsey
  • Robert Arthur Menard
  • Eldon Gerald Warman
  • David J. Lavigne
  • Edward Jay Robin Belanger

Such OPCA litigants are often seen as busybodies in the Courts. Many have been declared “vexatious litigants” for repeatedly initiating (and often appealing) baseless proceedings. While the techniques employed are interesting — as an observer — it’s hard to argue against the allegation that they seem designed to frustrate the function of Courts.

There’s no question that the courts in Canada are lacking in many ways. However, the techniques employed by OPCA litigants have essentially a zero percent success rate. Certainly, don’t pay them for their “services”.

Would society be better off if we were sovereign citizens and exempt from taxes and licenses? Certainly there’s a case to be made for that. However, Courts have never upheld this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca165/2007bcca165.html

Posted on

Will The VCC July 6, 2020 Suit Be Targeted Next?

As covered recently, Action4Canada’s rambling and incoherent suit was struck in its entirety by the B.C. Supreme Court. This was entirely predictable, as outlined here a year ago.

In a bit of a twist, the Judge didn’t completely throw the case out. He said that there were potentially valid issues. Instead, the pleadings were so shoddy that they had to be redone throughout.

Now, there’s another question to ask: will the July 6, 2020 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada be attacked next? It contains essentially the same serious defects as its counterpart. The Ontario Attorney General could make use of the A4C ruling to bolster a coming Motion to Strike.

Even back in November 2020, it was obvious that nothing was going to happen.

In addition to the above concerns, there are some others to look at:

1. Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Prosecute

In this context “failure to prosecute” means a failure to advance the case. The person(s) or group that initiates proceedings (Plaintiff, Applicant, Moving Party, Appellant, etc…) have an obligation to keep the case moving and active. With Vaccine Choice specifically, the suit was filed on July 6, 2020, and sat inactive for more than 2 years. True, CBC has been released as a Defendant, and Nicola Mercer has filed a Statement of Defense. However, others could try to get a dismissal for inactivity.

Rule 24 of Civil Procedure outlines a number of reasons to dismiss for delay, and gives a guideline of 6 months. It’s unclear though how strongly this is enforced.

It has to be asked why there was no attempt to secure a Default Judgement if other other side wasn’t responding. Had they not all been served? CBC claims — or at least implies — they weren’t.

2. Motion To Dismiss For “Mootness” Of Issues

According to Nicola Mercer’s SoD, paragraphs 25 and 26, the issue of various Orders is “moot” because they have long since expired. In the legal world, mootness means irrelevance, as these are issues that the Court can no longer try.

Think of it this way: would it make sense to go to Family Court for child custody once they are adults? Probably not.

Granted, the Plaintiffs can always ask for an injunction to prevent similar Orders in the future. However, it speaks volumes that the case was allowed to sit for years. Obviously, there was no real effort or urgency in getting them thrown out. The suit may well get tossed (at least in part) for this.

3. Dismissal Under Statute Of Limitations

Typically, there are time limits regarding how long a person can go to Court to seek a remedy. The reasoning goes that it isn’t beneficial to litigate ancient wrongs after a certain point. While there are exceptions, the Ontario Limitations Act, Section 4, specifies 2 years for most things. This is referred to as the “Basic Limitation Period“.

Why does this matter? Because the Statute of Limitations is typically an absolute bar to proceedings. The Vaccine Choice Canada case clearly isn’t going anywhere. If any of the Plaintiffs were to discontinue, and then refile elsewhere, they would be prevented from bringing issues over 2 years old.

In essence, this has been a great way to run out the clock.

4. Dismissal As Suit Brought For Improper Purposes

This should be obvious, but the only reason someone is allowed to file a lawsuit is to take it to Trial. The person(s) has to believe that there is a strong case, and that it can be won on the merits.

By contrast, the July 13, 2022 livestream with Vaccine Choice Canada suggests other motivations at play. Justifications such as “taking a shot across the bow” or of “educating the public”, or of “getting a response” are offered up. Problem is: all of this is illegal. None of these are valid reasons to sue. It’s entirely possible the lawsuit could be thrown out just based on these statements.

In that livestream, it’s asserted that Summary Judgement will be sought against the Defendants. That’s funny. This is when a Judge determines that either there’s not valid defense, or a valid case. If anything, this would be used in favour of throwing out the suit.

There has been boasting that this suit was “leverage” to implement mask exemptions. Action4Canada makes similar statements with respect to their suit. It’s hard to see how, given how poorly the Claims were written. Even if true, it’s not a valid reason to file.

5. Dismissal Over Potential Conflict Of Interest

An observant person might notice a few other things.

(Page 24) April 20, 2021 Application Of Various Police Officers
(Page 20) April 20, 2021 Application Against Masks On School Children

This is potentially a serious problem. Denis Rancourt is listed as an expert witness in 2 Applications filed in 2021. He’s also a Plaintiff in the above Vaccine Choice suit. A Judge likely wouldn’t view him as an impartial expert witness if he has an interest in a related matter. Yes, his background is impressive, but this still wouldn’t sit well.

Worth noting, both Applications above could probably be dismissed as well for delay, mootness, and failure to prosecute. They’ve been inactive since April 2021.

Would it be nice to see the Courts completely and permanently block these medical martial law measures? Absolutely it would. However, these are clearly not the cases that will do that. These are nothing more than money pits.

People really need to ask the hard questions, such as: (a) how much money has been raised; and (b) where has it gone?

Will the Ontario Attorney General go after the July 6, 2020 VCC case?

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html

Posted on

VCC July 6, 2020 Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of)

Here is the latest on the (second) Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit, filed July 6, 2020.

This website has been about the only media outlet that has fully and truthfully reported on a number of high profile “anti-lockdown” lawsuits. Despite the hype surrounding them — and the endless requests for donations — there is stunningly little to report.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that nothing has been happening. According to the Ontario Court, these are all the documents that are available as of today, August 24, 2022.

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

After more than 2 years, all that has happened is that: (a) there was a Notice of Discontinuance against the CBC (removing them from the case); and (b) Nicola Mercer, MOH for the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, filed a Statement of Defense.

CBC implied in August 2020 that they were never served. They said they “obtained an unredacted copy”, which implies they contacted the Court directly. This is not proper service, and doesn’t start the 20 day time limit. Now, they threaten to bring a SLAPP Motion?! When were they served?

Interestingly, the Affidavit of Service came from Nicola Mercer’s lawyer when serving the Statement of Defense. There doesn’t appear to be any Affidavits of Service from the Plaintiffs for the Statement of Claim. Therefore, it’s a fair question to ask who has actually been served.

Considering the Claim is missing most service addresses, that alone may open it up to procedural challenges.

Here are a few points from Mercer’s Statement of Defense:

  • A “good faith” defense is raised with respect to issuing orders
  • There are statutory provisions to allow for such orders
  • Mercer was following the so-called scientific consensus
  • Mercer relies on a provision granting immunity
  • Paragraphs 25 and 26 say that all orders have expired, and that the issue is moot.

That last point is of particular concern. By doing nothing for 2 years, the Defendants, or at least this one, can now say there’s no issue, as the orders are over. “Moot” in the legal sense refers to something that has already been resolved, and thus, there’s no reason to bring to Court.

In essence, Mercer claims (as one defense) that so much time has elapsed, the issue of the various orders is no longer relevant.

This site covered the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits. It was described in great detail how both Claims were horribly defective, and likely to be thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

This wasn’t designed to smear or defame anyone. Instead, these critiques were meant to be brutally honest reviews about what was wrong with the pleadings. They were drafted so poorly that it was difficult to view this as anything other than intentional.

This is from a recent stream. Don’t worry, more is available:

The above clips are from Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 13, 2022 livestream. Quotes from these are very revealing as to what’s really been going on.

  • “Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides…. There’s [more to] the impact of your legal proceedings than simply what happens within the Court.”
  • “It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds.”
  • “We brought awareness to a dynamic that was hidden from the public.”
  • “I would suggest that maybe this was the most important impact we had to date.”
  • “The VCC case was initiated as a shot across the bow.”
  • “It was aimed at [mandatory vaccines and mask exemptions]”.
  • “As soon as we filed, they quickly back-peddled in Ontario and put in regulations that allowed for masking exemptions, in the wording we were advocating for.”
  • “This is not Hollywood. Constitutional issues are not always resolved in the Courtroom.”
  • “They’re resolved by pre-emptive action that makes the Government have a sober second thought.”
  • “It’s not as if the VCC challenge has had no effect, particularly in Ontario.”
  • “A lot of the issues being raised in the umbrella challenge are not being pursued [within other challenges].”

These video clips are essentially admissions that the July 6, 2020 lawsuit was brought for reasons other than to diligently pursue a Trial. Pretty moronic. It’s obvious from the total lack of progress that there was never any urgency in bringing this forward.

Yes, other people have filed lawsuits with ulterior motives in the past. Others will do so in the future. But few are dumb enough to brag on a livestream that this is what was really happening.

It takes a special kind of stupid to admit this. While the Ontario Attorney General could always file a Motion to strike (for a variety of reasons), this makes it much easier. Beyond that, filing lawsuits with no intention to pursue them could lead to serious issues with the Law Society of Ontario, or whichever Province one practices in.

It’s unclear how this July 6, 2020 case was used to “leverage” anything out of the Ford Regime. It was written in such a disjointed manner, and contained so much irrelevant information, it would have been easy to get struck. This isn’t a document that would shake and scare the A.G.’s Office. It’s the kind of rant that would make most lawyers laugh.

Supposedly, there is some larger “litigation strategy” that Vaccine Choice refuses to disclose. This is a massive bait-and-switch. In the Summer of 2020, there was a fundraising blitz undertaken to raise cash for this ground breaking suit. This comes across as extremely unethical.

Many people donated in good faith to these lawsuits, believing that proceeding to Trial was the ultimate goal. But that apparently isn’t the case.

In the Summer of 2021, new talking points emerged about there being “Affidavits of evidence” that totaled in the thousands of pages. However, they haven’t been filed anywhere, if they even exist. A likely explanation is that this was done to quell concerns about the complete lack of activity.

And now that the various orders are (for now, at least) gone, it wouldn’t take much to get the case tossed for mootness. This 2 year delay made this possible.

Also, consider the Action4Canada case as a reference point. Brief responses were filed by the Defendants, followed by Applications to Strike. The B.C. Attorney General’s Office argued that the the long delays were used to drive up donations, while making no real progress. It was admitted in the May 31, 2022 session that over $750,000 had been raised. Currently, Judgement is reserved on various Applications to strike that suit as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

All of this was laid out last August.
Vindication is bittersweet.

It’s not a stretch to see the Vaccine Choice Canada case going down that same path. The much longer delay is curious, and again raises questions of when Defendants were actually served.

The admissions that the July 6 case was a “shot across the bow”, or done “as pre-emptive action”, or done “to educate the public”, make it clear there were other agendas at play.

Donors should demand their money back, and Vaccine Choice really needs to open up the books for public inspection.

Now, about those rumours….

It’s not really a secret that this website (and anyone directly or indirectly associated) was sued last year for $7,000,000. The main issue was reporting the observation that it didn’t appear these anti-lockdown suits were ever meant to go to Trial. The problems, including defects with the pleadings themselves, were covered in great detail. More on that another time.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view